Sunday, October 11, 2009

Despite having increased the federal budget deficit by $1.2 trillion after he signed two new bills, the $787B stimulus and the $410B omnibus, President Obama is in the midst of another problem: the war in Afghanistan. I must admit, when Barack Obama decided to send troops into Afghanistan, this was his first and only decision so far as President that I support. He acted quickly, choosing to continue the fight against the terrorists. But just as quickly did Obama act when sending troops into Afghanistan, he soon forgot about the issue and moved on to lesser important things.

In attempt to re-focus the President, I'll remind him that General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is still requesting between 30,000 and 40,000 more troops. Since the President has already ordered an initial troop surge in the Afghanistan War, Obama must make another decision very soon: send between 30,000 and 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan and try to win the war, or be weak and surrender to Al-Qaeda. And to reiterate the President's current state of confusion, Afghanistan is indeed on the list of places we're fighting Al-Qaeda. If it helps the President to remember, I'll just say it like it is — we're at war with Al-Qaeda — and they are still terrorists.

Here's another quick memo to President Obama: You cannot simply vote 'present' on the issue and hope the problem goes away on its own. Unlike the too-quick to pass $1.2 trillion in earmark-riddled, pork barrel spending bills, Afghanistan is a situation where you, Mr. President, must make a decision sooner than later. Stop playing political games with the lives of American troops and make the right call. If it helps to feed your craving for personal gain and bolster your arrogance, win this war for your own legacy. More importantly however, and for the sake of not jeopardizing U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, listen to Gen. Stanley McChrystal!

That's not all either, because the real problem I have with Barack Obama is that we have no idea how the inexperienced and indecisive President will choose to continue the war in Afghanistan. Actually, unfortunately, history might be a greater tell-tail sign as to how the President may act; Obama's previous notions on war strategy seem to correlate with how-to lose a war. Currently, the President must decide one thing: Is there proof that a troop 'surge' in Afghanistan will work? Even if there is proof, how will Obama interpret the results?

Going back to the January 10, 2007 speech by former-President Bush, he had announced plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq by about 20,000 in an effort to quell violence throughout the country and especially in Baghdad. By spring 2008, the number of deaths and other violence in Iraq began to drop, and most journalists in the media were hailing the "surge" as a success and giving it much of the credit for improvements. Top U.S. officials have verified that the buildup did indeed help cut violence in Iraq to four-year lows. However, despite its success, what did Obama think of Bush's decision to push a troop surge in Iraq? "First, he opposed the surge — then he confidently predicted that it would fail," McCain said in his August 11 speech.

Barack Obama openly mocked the war in Iraq and tagged the efforts as a loss and defeat when he said, "Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."

Obama arrogantly suggested that U.S. troops could not win the war, but what actually happened? McCain said it best, "Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines and to brave Iraqi fighters, the surge has succeeded. And yet Senator Obama still can't quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment."

I have to wonder if now-President Obama will make the same mistake again. Will he have an epic-failure in judgment and lose the war in Afghanistan? I hope not. But he probably will, assuming he acts similarly arrogant as he has in the past. Barack Obama campaigned vehemently against the Iraq War, and he tore into the idea of a troop surge. Thus, a legitimate concern I have is that Obama will again refuse to listen to top military strategists when they ask for a troop surge.

Nothing tells me that President Obama knows what he's doing, yet he wreaks of false-confidence. Failure after failure he stubbornly chooses to make the wrong decision, rushing when he shouldn't be, and then taking his time when the clock is ticking and American lives are counting on him to act quickly. Maybe he just needs some more encouragement? Or maybe he is looking for a third, fourth, and possibly a fifth opinion to assure a troop surge is the right thing to do.

For those who have heard of the famous acronym, "WWJD?" (What Would Jesus Do), here's another acronym and after-thought as to what Obama's next decision as President should be: "WWPLD?" What Would President Limbaugh Do? If asked, "WWPLD?" Limbaugh said, in own words, "I'd win." President Limbaugh would listen to what the generals say. It's not hard. We win; they lose.

1 comment:

All too true. We would definitely be better off if we followed Rush's advice than Obama's anyday. Rush has been in politics for...who knows how many years, while Osama has only been in for a few years, maybe a decade at the most. Loved the post!